Is Burke the stumbling block?

[drew]

I understand that it was a problem for Gus and also for Oscar. Not him necessarily but the recruitment policy with non-football people sourcing players on behalf of the coaching team. Often players that they didn't want or need.

At last, a poster who seems to have had a conversation with both Gus and Oscar on the reasons they left!!!!! With regard to your second sentence, exactly who are the non=football people you speak of?

 

[Stat Brother]

This thread is pathetic, I would say 'Christ I hope the season starts soon', but it'll be even worse then.

It's just full of unsubstantiated rumour, innuendo, guessing and down right lies, and yet it's all spouted as FACT.

Like everybody else I have no idea how Tony runs the club.
I can assume that he's happy enough with the running of his £100m investment, as he's not made any changes to his senior staff for 3 (ish) years.

On occasion I read the programme.
On occasion I read the Argus.
I have listened to Tony, Barber, and Burke being interviewed on Roar.

I have never been to a 'Seagulls over ...' event, as I don't live in London, the North of Sussex and Burwash doesn't even exist.

From those I fail to see how any fan can be so anti everything that those 3 stand for, and it is 3 because Tony EMPLOYS the other 2.
Sure stuff happens that doesn't sit quite right, but those decisions are made with all the facts.

I guess it's easy to be anti if it fits your agenda and you haven't done even the most basic homework with regards to these peoples jobs and qualifications.

 

[The Large One]

Your comments seem to bear out what I have been told. It seems to be all about attitude and dealing with people.
TB may have employed him as a hard nosed negotiator but if the majority of contacts don't want to deal with him and his arrogance, then it would appear to be self-defeating.

So you hear one side, and treat it as gospel?

For him to be considered 'arrogant', in this context, has little meaning. It's pretty pathetic for an agent not to deal with a club because of a perceived personality issue.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

Your comments seem to bear out what I have been told. It seems to be all about attitude and dealing with people.
TB may have employed him as a hard nosed negotiator but if the majority of contacts don't want to deal with him and his arrogance, then it would appear to be self-defeating.

'Majority' can you provide names of those agents who won't deal compared to all those dozens that will?
Or is this just a lie based on hearsay?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

For him to be considered 'arrogant', in this context, has little meaning. It's pretty pathetic for an agent not to deal with a club because of a perceived personality issue.

Arrogant, even...


And a fairly spectaular dereliction of duty to their client, as well.

" Yeah mate, I got you two years, on £4,000 a week, at Barnsley."

"oh. Cheers. What happened with the interest from Brighton? I fancied that"

"Yeah, they would have matched it, but I don't like the Director of Football there, so I binned them off".

"oh."

 

[itszamora]

For goodness sake, don't start bringing facts up, how are we meant to sort this disaster out, if you start bringing facts into it

If Tony Bloom says something is so, is it a fact?

 

[Jim D]

If Tony Bloom says something is so, is it a fact?

Having seen Bloom talk I would say that he says a lot of sensible things about the plans and the approach. I believe what he said about the timeline leading to Poyet's departure, although I have no insight of the Gross Misconduct charges. I also believe what he said about Oscar's list of targets and our ability to bring them in. Unless you have access to all the information it's difficult to be 100% certain but I am inclined to believe him when he says something is so. And even if it isn't, it's his money so he can spend it how he likes.

 

[itszamora]

Tony Bloom is an intelligent man so surely he can see that.

He is in Australia six months of the year, so it might not always be apparent to him.

 

[Titanic]

He is in Australia six months of the year, so it might not always be apparent to him.

 

[bathseagull]

At last, a poster who seems to have had a conversation with both Gus and Oscar on the reasons they left!!!!! With regard to your second sentence, exactly who are the non=football people you speak of?

Well, I didn't speak to either of them after they left but I did speak with people who worked for them, both during their time at the club and soon after they left.

By non-football people I mean non-coaching staff, people that look at players based on reputation, stats and performance data rather than style of play and how they will fit into the group socially and philosophically.

Plenty of clubs are taking this approach these days because it allows for measurable targets and projected returns to be set and puts greater accountability on coaches. All this then fits better with potential investors. The film Moneyball gives a really good insight into the strategy and how certain people view it and the affect it can have on a club (or 'franchise' in their case).

 

[lawros left foot]

If Tony Bloom says something is so, is it a fact?

More of a fact, than the majority of posts on here. I am more inclined to believe him, than someone who's only source of information is an Internet message board and a quite useless local paper

 

[Thunder Bolt]

He is in Australia six months of the year, so it might not always be apparent to him.

Do you honestly think he goes to Melbourne and doesn't use Skype or emails?

 

[itszamora]

Do you honestly think he goes to Melbourne and doesn't use Skype or emails?

No, but it's not the same as working with someone every day, is it?

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Well, I didn't speak to either of them after they left but I did speak with people who worked for them, both during their time at the club and soon after they left.

By non-football people I mean non-coaching staff, people that look at players based on reputation, stats and performance data rather than style of play and how they will fit into the group socially and philosophically.

Plenty of clubs are taking this approach these days because it allows for measurable targets and projected returns to be set and puts greater accountability on coaches. All this then fits better with potential investors. The film Moneyball gives a really good insight into the strategy and how certain people view it and the affect it can have on a club (or 'franchise' in their case).

The difficulty with the Moneyball approach is that baseball is relatively easily quantifiable because there are clearer links between performance and outcomes. Football, being fluid, is much harder to measure.

For example, a player can have a pass-completion percentage of 100, but if he only ever passes sideways or backwards and never more than 10 yards, is that better than someone who succeeds with only half of his passing attempts yet creates several goalscoring chances with riskier, more ambitious passes? ProZone and various other systems have been used for many years, but it's an inexact science.

Of course, there's nothing wrong - and everything right - with one of the club's stats analysts saying to the scouting team: "There's a kid at club X in Switzerland who never seems to give the ball away" or "the goalkeeper at club Z in Norway hasn't dropped a cross all season" and recommending that we take a look at them. But if their influence goes any further, it would be a concern. Even in Moneyball (the book - can't remember if it's in the movie), Billy Beane still sends a scout to check the players out.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No, but it's not the same as working with someone every day, is it?

That's what Paul Barber is there for.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Dobbie was a good signing but Gus didn't play him. Rodriguez, Obika , Lita weren't successes but did we need them ? Its a bit of a moot point. We reached the play offs with the sqaud and these three were back up who in the end hardly played or had to play anyway. Rodriguez wasn't even in the 18 when the squad was fit towards the end of the season. Agustien and Monakana . Lets see. I said there had been signings that haven't worked out. There always will be. But did we have squads in the last two seasons that could / should have given us a chance of promotion ? I'd say yes and given our budget then thats an achievement for the existing set up.

Surely it's too early to tell with Monakana. Looks like a promising raw talent that the new manager may be able to mould.

 

[bathseagull]

The difficulty with the Moneyball approach is that baseball is relatively easily quantifiable because there are clearer links between performance and outcomes. Football, being fluid, is much harder to measure.

For example, a player can a pass-completion percentage of 100, but if he only ever passes sideways or backwards and never more than 10 yards, is that better than someone who succeeds with only half of his passing attempts yet creates several goalscoring chances with riskier, more ambitious passes? ProZone and various other systems have been used for many years, but it's an inexact science.

I agree, people are now saying the same thing about possession. It used to be all about keeping the ball, tiki-taka triangles but it's all very well having 75% possession but if you don't do anything purposeful with it then it's less valid. I think our playoff games against derby were the clearest indication of this - when we had possession we dawdled with it and allowed them time to settle whereas when they gained possession they broke at speed, passed forwards and exploited our lack of shape mush better. They may not have had the ball for as long as us over the two games but they certainly did more with it.

I'm not a fan of the Moneyball approach personally. I think the one person that should have the most say over who gets brought into a squad and who doesn't is the person that is going to coach them and send them out onto the pitch. The role of coach is being increasingly belittled and they are seemingly being viewed as potential scapegoats when things don't pan out. As someone said to me, the game is being run more and more clinically by graduates, teachers and business professionals and less and less kinaesthetically by coaches, educators and man-managers which is a shame.

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

No, but it's not the same as working with someone every day, is it?

I work with people everyday who happen to be all over the world, both east and west and just because the time zones are different it doesn't mean communication stops although sometimes i do have to wait a few hours for a reply to an email and in a teleconference the time delay can be a trifle annoying but you get used to it

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I agree, people are now saying the same thing about possession. It used to be all about keeping the ball, tiki-taka triangles but it's all very well having 75% possession but if you don't do anything purposeful with it then it's less valid. I think our playoff games against derby were the clearest indication of this - when we had possession we dawdled with it and allowed them time to settle whereas when they gained possession they broke at speed, passed forwards and exploited our lack of shape mush better. They may not have had the ball for as long as us over the two games but they certainly did more with it.

I'm not a fan of the Moneyball approach personally. I think the one person that should have the most say over who gets brought into a squad and who doesn't is the person that is going to coach them and send them out onto the pitch. The role of coach is being increasingly belittled and they are seemingly being viewed as potential scapegoats when things don't pan out. As someone said to me, the game is being run more and more clinically by graduates, teachers and business professionals and less and less kinaesthetically by coaches, educators and man-managers which is a shame.

Matthew Le Tissier had the perfect reply to those who said he gave away possession by trying ambitious shots and passes: "The other team got the ball so often because they had to keep kicking off after we'd scored."

 

[JCL - the new kid in town]

Mo, I mentioned something similar to this recently on another thread and to be fair, was treated seriously about it.

You and I both know that David Burke IS a problem within The Albion, and I'm afraid it's not his position that's the problem ( although, saying that, it may well be to some. )

It really is him with his attitude.

There are 3 agents now that I know of that really don't don't want to deal with him.

the agents don't want to deal with him perhaps but at the end of the day they are representing their client. If for example we try and buy a player but their agent doesn't tell his player about the bid then he is surely breaching his contract with his client. You don't have to like people to do business with them.